So basically you are going to say you can't take my post seriously because I give no sources, but then go on to give me some "facts".......with no sources. Great logic, you would do the vulcans proud.

Even assuming your numbers are correct, how much of that DLC is ACTUAL games. I'm talking about stuff like madden or fable or any other major published game. Not fun little mini game stuff or extra levels for a disc based game. But actual games you can download for the 360 thats also sold in the store.

I find it hard to take your post seriously as you have given no evidence you know much about the video game industry. As I said, if PCs have not gone digital only then consoles won't. Blizzard and steam are not an example of a trend. Two companies. Almost every PC game is sold as a physical disc even if it has the option of it being downloadable, and not a whole lot do. There is a major difference between downloadable CONTENT and downloadable GAMES, and you give the impression that you don't understand that difference. Any console that went download only would all but kill the RPG and platformer genres on that system as those two most of the time single player and offline. Not to mention downloading only will NEVER catch on to the majority so long as companies continue to charge just as much to download the game as to buy the physical disc with the game manual and anything else in the box.

Again I go back to my original point though, if you are upset with PC gaming then thats an issue with PC game developers and hardware makers. PCs have always been better in terms of power and graphics. So if you feel its not good enough you need to either buy a better computer, or complain to the makers to do a better job on the games/parts.

You bring up a few valid points however. I never claimed any developer would go full download for sure, but I explained WHY they would want to do it if they could. There is certainly a demand from the Publisher side to further pursue downloadable distribution. It gives them a much higher turnover compared to regular distribution channels.

The fact that BioWare made over 1 Mio. dollars with the sale of DLC within a month of Dragon Age Onlines release shows just how willing people are to pay for digital content. Another fun fact (also from this article: http://www.gamestar.de/index.cfm?pid=675&pk=2318920 ) is that the average player of a F2P MMO spends 28 dollars a month on digital content. That's also why so many of the less-popular MMOs (LotRO, D&D Online, etc.) are all going Free2Play. They actually make a lot more money that way compared to the regular subscription model. So yes, people are prepared to pay a lot for digital content.

But you're also right when you say, most people, still like to "hold a product in their hands" when spending a significant amount of dollars on a game. And direct sale is still the way most full-price games are sold. Many people used the SC II and WoW digital download option, even-though its more expensive than the regular retail version (if preordered). Steam has been going for ages, although it's more than just a game-distribution software. But I'd agree with your sentiment that, unless there is a monetary advantage, I don't see digital distribution trumping regular sales anytime soon.

But it's only a matter of time, because the trend is there and has been for a while, the publishers want it, and many players are prepared to pay for purely digital content. The real question is if the remaining "conservative" players can converted. A new console technology that emphasized the benefits of such a system could help convert these players. Granted, it's a bit of a gamble but so is every innovation. If consoles really are expected to have a 10 year life-cycle, then pursuing digital distribution might be the right way to go. It's not really a matter of whether or not you like it.
Sony released their BluRay drive way before the Full-HD breakthrough. Hell, there weren't even movie BluRays at the time. But when you release a console, you always need to take the next 4 years into account. And looking back, the BluRay drive probably helped boost the PS3 sales by quite a bit, although it was the single most expensive component of the console.

But to be honest, your arguments seem to be based of the fact that you personally don't like digital download content. Guess what, neither do I. But you cannot deny that there are plenty of reasons for publishers to pursue it. And we customers will eventually follow track. And I'm not even sure how to react to the rest of you babbling. It doesn't make any logical sense. My PC is fine and I have no issues with it. But you cannot deny that the console limitations limit what game-designers build.

Just look at Final Fantasy 14. The PC version went fine, but they had to push back the PS3 version because they simply couldn't get it to work with the limited amount of memory available. And FF14 was already designed with the limited memory in mind. A game as expansive as WoW would never run on current consoles. Not only because of the contol issues, but because you can't really run WoW effectivly with 256/512 MB memory. Ever wondered why recent BioWare RPGs have such tunneled levels, compared to the vast open spaces of classic RPGs like Baldurs Gate? Because console memory can't handle more than a very limited amount of textures and NPCs in a confined area. At this time there is really no need to upgrade any PC hardware, nor will there be for the foreseeable future. Until the Next-Gen consoles are released, the hard-ware limitations of the PS3/XBox 360 will be what prevent multi-platform games of ever becoming too demanding.

First off while I am aware not everyone that posts on this site lives in the united states or has english as their first language, when you are having a discussion about video games in english linking to a website that are in german as 'proof' is useless. So your source is invalid and you have yet to provide any evidence of the 'facts' you have claimed. Not to mention you will have to excuse me for not taking the word of some german website about the sales revenue of an american based company.

Second, as I have already said, yes digital CONTENT is popular. Games are not content. Content is extra armor, weapons, levels, etc, etc. Very few actual full games, that are expected to sell, are available for digital download, none are download only. Bethesda puts out digital download content for their elder scrolls games. Infact it was so popular for oblivion that they made an actual disc for it to sell. They do no however put the games up for sale by digital download. That should tell you something. Maybe the next elder scrolls will be and maybe it won't be.

You do not seem to understand the difference between content and games. I don't know if its a language thing or what, but it is a huge difference. Selling one extra level for a game online for download only is not the same thing as selling the entire 20 level game online. Look at wow, the most popular online game in the world you can only play it online, and yet the majority of the sales come from physical copies in stores. It doesn't get an clearer then that. If the most popular game in the world that can only be played online gets far less then half its sales from online then it is NOT something that is going to catch on.

As I have repeatedly said, if the vast majority of PC games do not even offer digital download for their games, it just won't happen with consoles. It would be pretty safe to say that probably close to every single person that plays games on a PC also has the internet, and yet the developers don't offer their games for download. I have no idea how you can think a console would ever go download only anytime soon. I honestly do think it will happen eventually, just that eventually will be at least 20 years or more from now.

EA has an Online Store afaik, Ubisoft dies too, then there are websites likes gamesload.com that have been around for ages and I have already mentioned Blizzards store.

Ok, so you can't read German which means you'll have to take my word for what I said. Or here's an idea. How about you try to discredit any of my points I bought up if you don't believe me.

And I'm fully aware of the difference between DLC and full-priced games. If you'd actually bothered to read my post you'd have realized that. In fact here's a post asking about Cataclysms DD from the front-page: http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...ysm-digital-DL Seems like people are prepared to pay a full-price for a full-game.

But unless you actually take some time to discredit what I said with any kind of information back-up, instead of just posting what YOU seem to think it right, then this debate is over.

Indeed. And what's up with claiming that current gen consoles are using DirectX 8? Playstation is OpenGL, not directX. And Xbox 360 is of course using a modified DirectX API since it's microsoft, but it was originally based on DirectX 9 with DX9 compatible graphics hardware and the console as a whole can support most of the things that a developer can do with DirectX 10.

I can't take your response seriously, sorry, and I'm pretty sure I've got a pretty good idea of what's going on in the gaming industry. And since you don't offer any sources or proof of your points, I'm just going to have to assume you pulled them out of your arse.

Fact: Microsoft generates almost 50% of its XBox revenues from downloadable content. Classic disc sales make up the remaining half.
Fact: Publishers have a much higher revenue on d/l content. That's why they love DLC. No logistics, no "production" costs for disks etc. Source: http://www.gamestar.de/index.cfm?pid=675&pk=2318920

What's stopping them from going full-download is customer acceptance. Currently most players still prefer to be "holding a disk in their hand" when buying a full-price game. However, this trend is dissipating slowly. Blizzards "digital download" is an example of that, as is STEAM.

Where are your sources for the revenue amount from Xboxlive downloaded game sales vs retail copies? The only videogame system on the market to support DD-only (PSP Go) failed incredibly hard, while videogame systems like the Wii and DS (primarly physical based media) have set unprecendented hardware and software sales records that will not be broken for years. Also, while digital releases are not normally tracked by the NPD, I have never seen a mention EVER of a digital copy of a retail game selling more than it's physical counterpart on a standard console. Maybe you could direct me to that information? I am aware that there are popular DL games from places like the Iphone App store, but that is a different beast altogether if you wish to count that in on the discussion (I am willing to if you want to go there).

I do think it would be possible to eventually replace physical media for videogames, but there's a lot of work that needs to be done that developers and publishers are going to have to address if they expect to suceed. Bandwidth caps are still an issue for people in most countries (which even a Wii game or three would cap quickly, let alone a few 360 or PS3 games) for a month. There are no systems in place to transfer of digital-only releases from old gen consoles to next gen consoles. There is no option to resell a digital purchase if the product is unliked/buggy/janky or finished with after a playthrough, and digital releases will often stay the same price for years when I can get clearance and holiday sales (Steam does have sales sometimes I admit, but I can pull up several more DD services that never do). Then there's also the little fact that if the internet is down or congested for whatever reason (see Xboxlive during a popular DEMO release) you are SoL versus going to a store and just getting your copy.

Consumers may be dumb in some ways, but if publishers expect to reap all of the benefits of DD-only while at the same time taking away most of the benefits of physical media from consumers, they are gonna have a hard sell and will absolutely not suceed. Customer acceptance is the whole point. If they don't have that, they have nothing. Videogames are not a necessary good or service to live and someone will always be willing to one-up an unpopular deal and offer consumers what they DO want (physical media) if the demand is there and there is money to be made.

Classic Retail sell more than DD, I never disputed that. I'd also agree that the market isn't ready for pure DD for the reason you stated, bandwidth limitations being one factor.

But I think it is defiantly something Publishers are exploring and I bet it played/plays a huge role when it comes to designing the new console

And don't forget, when we're speculating about Next-Gen consoles we're talking about the market in 2014 and beyond. I don't think it's that hard to imagine a publisher going for DD, and maybe only offering a BluRay drive as an extension.

I think it will be far more likely that the markets will simply coexist, at least until reasonable solutions have been found for those issues (if they can be found in this lifetime). There are several more factors I didn't list because I am not as knowledgeable on them, but I do think a stronger focus on DD would defintely be a good thing for those who prefer it. There are some benefits, after all. Some people never sell their games, and physical space is precious to a lot of people if they are a game junkie.

Besides those concerns (bandwidth caps, download speeds, resale value, data transfer, price reduction ect), I was wondering what incentive a brick and mortar store would have when selling them, since I believe at this time they make more money on software sales than hardware sales (apparently a reason for the initially high PSP Go price, and also for retailers not caring to help it keep from flopping less than it did). Also, why would you buy the device over, say, a computer? Computer strengths revolve around constantly downloading data, having multiple levels of power, and being upgradable to handle the memory issues that come with downloading multiple games, something I'm not sure a DD only console could compete with. Many developers seem to prefer more closed platforms to optimize the power of said platform, but the best graphical fidelity of console games are still miles behind the best computer game graphics. Yet almost no one takes advantage of those computers for some reason, despite the vast majority of a hypothetical DD-only console's strengths plus an already massive installed base in millions upon millions of homes around the world. Blizzard and Valve and a few other non-indy devs like computers a lot, but I wonder why all the console devs would suddenly flock to this hypothetical new console but not the PC. PC does get lots of multi-platform games, but you can tell what the main platform was for those (not the PC, never the PC).

For the record, Nintendo can make a console just as powerful as MS or Sony can, they don't make them as powerful to keep the price down. Not to mention Nintendo consoles are just better quality in the first place. My xbox started having problems after not even a year and was broken within two. My PS2 started having problems after a few years as well. My N64 however still works, mostly, after almost 14 years. My GC and Wii also run perfectly with no problems after having them longer then when my xbox and ps2 started showing problems. Quality > graphics. ALWAYS.

If you're talking about the original Xbox, that was just bad luck, I still have my first Xbox and it runs fine.

Xbox 360, on the other hand, did have the RRoD problems, and I went through 2 consoles because of it. They fixed it with the second-generation 360, and mine's been running fine ever since.

The PS3, Xbox and Wii have their different niches, the Xbox being some of the most popular FPSs (Halo), PS3 having the Dualshock accelerometer controller and the best platformer/shooter/puzzlesolving game (Ratchet and Clank Series, only reason I bought a PS3) and the Wii has the motion controls.

Also: though it HAD (past-tense, they fixed it years ago) the RRoD problem, the Xbox is the best shooter console imo, just because of the way the controller is laid out. (the PS3 controller cramps up my hand because of the stick placement, and some games use the top shoulder bumpers as the triggers).

Slightly off topic, but to those bringing up the 360 RRoD thing to show Sony's superiority, it doesn't. Me and my brother have had 9 PS2's between us. We didn't even get the first off the line PS2, we got our first in 2003, bought the last in 2006. You may think we're careless owners, but then why is our first (and only) Xbox original still working? As is our first and only N64, and our first and only Mega Drive (by now, 16 years old). The PS2's failure rate is what put me off buying a PS3, especially when a friend of mine, who bought his the very first day it was available in the UK, had it break down on him in the first month. The thing is, nothing was indicated by the console itself as being wrong, just wouldn't boot up, and he had to send it off to Sony to get checked, who made him pay p&p, made him pay forthe check, then charged him to fix his console. Altogether it cost him over £100 to get it all sorted. He hadn't even played it, it had sat, unopened on his shelf for three months because there weren't any release titles that interested him. You may say he's unlucky, and that's fine, but it highlights something fundamentally wrong with Sony. The PS1 was a fantastic console, it was brilliant, as console developments go it was a huge leap like going from black and white television to colour, thats the level of progress it showed....and yes, it sold ridiculously well...but Sony never kept that going, it fell back onto it's brand name.

I still think Sony has it in them to move console gaming forward again, but if it is going to do so, it has got to become the innovator it once was...instead of taking other people's ideas, and marketing them as it's own. It's also got to make a GAMES console this time, instead of whatever entertainment centre blah de blah thing it's trying to make itself out to be.

I still think Sony has it in them to move console gaming forward again, but if it is going to do so, it has got to become the innovator it once was...instead of taking other people's ideas, and marketing them as it's own. It's also got to make a GAMES console this time, instead of whatever entertainment centre blah de blah thing it's trying to make itself out to be.

Sony never really moved console gaming forward in the first place. Unless you count the super casual which many people would argue has started to ruin gaming from the dumbing down of games for the masses.

If anyone is going to move gaming forward it will be Nintendo, as they always do. The reason is simple: money. Video games are nothing but a source of profit for sony and ms. If the playstation line starts doing poorly and losing money then they will get rid of it and just go on making tvs and other electronics. Its one of the many branches of sony. Same thing with ms. Nintendo however is all about video games because its the only thing they do. They don't make tvs or dvd players or operating systems for computers. If they start losing money they will go out of business and there will be no more nintendo and mario or zelda. Thats why nintendo cares more about quality then then the other two, their existence as a company literally depends on it.

That is why sony and ms don't have to care, they can just move resources and life goes on if video games doesn't work out. But I will give credit to ms, they do seem to be giving an honest effort of making quality stuff. The original 360 had a bunch of problems and they manned up to it and gave free repairs and extended warranties. Then came out with a better 360 so it wouldn't break down as much. Unlike sony who had the ps2 break down constantly and basically told their customers to go fuck themselves, and then the same with the ps3 when it broke. Though that wasn't near as often as the ps2.

The funny thing is the original playstation was the best quality of all three systems and its the one that was being designed with nintendo. We don't really know where in development nintendo and sony were when nintendo pulled out of the deal and how much of that went into the playstation. I just find it funny that sony's best made system came to be after working with nintendo, but the very next system that was sony only had massive quality issues with its parts.

Sony never really moved console gaming forward in the first place. Unless you count the super casual which many people would argue has started to ruin gaming from the dumbing down of games for the masses.

If anyone is going to move gaming forward it will be Nintendo, as they always do. The reason is simple: money. Video games are nothing but a source of profit for sony and ms. If the playstation line starts doing poorly and losing money then they will get rid of it and just go on making tvs and other electronics. Its one of the many branches of sony. Same thing with ms. Nintendo however is all about video games because its the only thing they do. They don't make tvs or dvd players or operating systems for computers. If they start losing money they will go out of business and there will be no more nintendo and mario or zelda. Thats why nintendo cares more about quality then then the other two, their existence as a company literally depends on it.

That is why sony and ms don't have to care, they can just move resources and life goes on if video games doesn't work out. But I will give credit to ms, they do seem to be giving an honest effort of making quality stuff. The original 360 had a bunch of problems and they manned up to it and gave free repairs and extended warranties. Then came out with a better 360 so it wouldn't break down as much. Unlike sony who had the ps2 break down constantly and basically told their customers to go fuck themselves, and then the same with the ps3 when it broke. Though that wasn't near as often as the ps2.

The funny thing is the original playstation was the best quality of all three systems and its the one that was being designed with nintendo. We don't really know where in development nintendo and sony were when nintendo pulled out of the deal and how much of that went into the playstation. I just find it funny that sony's best made system came to be after working with nintendo, but the very next system that was sony only had massive quality issues with its parts.

Why I say they moved it forward is they moved it onto disc, yes, i know it was originally in collaboration with Nintendo, but Nintendo pulled out thinking that cartridges were still viable for home consoles after witnessing the debacle that was the Sega Mega CD. Sony went with it though, they didn't have to, especially with respect to their previous failure at introducing a new medium (namely betamax, ironically, nintendo in trying to stick with cartridges banked on the "VHS" this time, and lost) but they did, and the rest is history. The N64 was a great console, had great games, but it was nowhere near the success that Playstation was. Could've been very different as well, as FFVII, a flagship title for playstation, was initially developed for N64, but ported to Playstation instead once it became clear the cartidges didn't have enough memory to store the game. Google it, if you don't believe me, there was a working tech demo and everything.

I kind of agree with the part about Nintendo having tomake quality games to ensure survival, but again, how many original IPs have they come up with recently? Hell, not even recently, lets say ten years? If anyone's banking on past success, it's Nintendo, which is rather sad really.

Why I say they moved it forward is they moved it onto disc, yes, i know it was originally in collaboration with Nintendo, but Nintendo pulled out thinking that cartridges were still viable for home consoles after witnessing the debacle that was the Sega Mega CD. Sony went with it though, they didn't have to, especially with respect to their previous failure at introducing a new medium (namely betamax, ironically, nintendo in trying to stick with cartridges banked on the "VHS" this time, and lost) but they did, and the rest is history. The N64 was a great console, had great games, but it was nowhere near the success that Playstation was. Could've been very different as well, as FFVII, a flagship title for playstation, was initially developed for N64, but ported to Playstation instead once it became clear the cartidges didn't have enough memory to store the game. Google it, if you don't believe me, there was a working tech demo and everything.

I kind of agree with the part about Nintendo having tomake quality games to ensure survival, but again, how many original IPs have they come up with recently? Hell, not even recently, lets say ten years? If anyone's banking on past success, it's Nintendo, which is rather sad really.

The disc wasn't even sony's idea, the real ironic thing is the playstation only exists because of the failure of nintendo's lawyers. Apparently they never got a copyright or proper papers for legal ownership of the work being done, so when they pulled out the project was just sitting there and sony decided to go forward with it on their own. Had nintendo gotten the copyright stuff the playstation wouldn't exist.

The playstation was only more successful depending on how you define success. In terms of quality games the n64 was better imo. The n64 has what are considered the best games of the time in almost every genre over the ps. The best shooter, the best adventure game, the best platformer. Obviously sony had the best rpg, and sports were near even since they tended to come out on both consoles. But to me I would choose the n64 since it had a far better controller and better graphics.The fact is the playstation was the mtv of game consoles. People got it to seem hip and trendy when gaming was becoming more popular.

I would also hardly complain or say its sad that nintendo relies to much on their past games for success when there are how many final fantasies, maddens, ratchet and clanks, gtas, and all the other multi game titles that sony relies on. The point is they both sell very well and both companies would be a lot worse off without them. Hell, twilight princess is considered to be possibly a better game then ocarina of time. And OoT is considered to be the best game ever made.

The disc wasn't even sony's idea, the real ironic thing is the playstation only exists because of the failure of nintendo's lawyers. Apparently they never got a copyright or proper papers for legal ownership of the work being done, so when they pulled out the project was just sitting there and sony decided to go forward with it on their own. Had nintendo gotten the copyright stuff the playstation wouldn't exist.

The playstation was only more successful depending on how you define success. In terms of quality games the n64 was better imo. The n64 has what are considered the best games of the time in almost every genre over the ps. The best shooter, the best adventure game, the best platformer. Obviously sony had the best rpg, and sports were near even since they tended to come out on both consoles. But to me I would choose the n64 since it had a far better controller and better graphics.The fact is the playstation was the mtv of game consoles. People got it to seem hip and trendy when gaming was becoming more popular.

I would also hardly complain or say its sad that nintendo relies to much on their past games for success when there are how many final fantasies, maddens, ratchet and clanks, gtas, and all the other multi game titles that sony relies on. The point is they both sell very well and both companies would be a lot worse off without them. Hell, twilight princess is considered to be possibly a better game then ocarina of time. And OoT is considered to be the best game ever made.

I should have clarified the sucees as being a financial one because I agree about N64 having the better games. Super Mario 64, Goldeneye, TLoZ; OoT...all the greatest games available at the time. What the playstation had though was variety, it had scores of good to great games compared to N64s few really excellent titles. I agree as well it was more of a status thing as well, can't really imagine why, suppose the cool kids got it so everybody else did..even though the "cool" kids didn't play it....just had it...

I didn't know about the lack of copyright thing, I knew it was originally Ninendo's idea, but I've read from various soruces about the whole going back to cartridge thing because it was considered to still be viable, but i'll definitely look ino it more (bit of a console histoy nerd, yeah).

I didn't know about the lack of copyright thing, I knew it was originally Ninendo's idea, but I've read from various soruces about the whole going back to cartridge thing because it was considered to still be viable, but i'll definitely look ino it more (bit of a console histoy nerd, yeah).

That is what I have read anyway. I don't know if it was specifically copyright, but from what I read it was one of the legal terms or filings or whatever on the project. There was apparently no legal reason to prevent sony from just continuing on with the project on their own. So they did. I don't know maybe nintendo didn't think they would back out, or when they did maybe they didn't think sony would continue on with it, who knows. I do wonder what things would be like now though if sony couldn't take the work forward on their own. Would have they have tried to start from scratch on their own? Or would nintendo completely and utterly dominate the market now? I think its safe to say that the xbox line probably wouldn't have happened if the playstation never had. Who knows, maybe even pc gaming would be way more popular then it is now.